|
Post by WSmith on Aug 16, 2005 16:46:58 GMT -5
I say sometimes that if OD&D wasn't spread across several books it would be the version of D&D that appeals to me the most. The question is, what rules and material from all the original rulebooks, the suppliments, chainmail, and Strategic Review do you guys think should be included in a single volume, OD&D rulebook? Or should there be a player's guide containg the character classes, weapons, combat, spells, etc. (all the stuff a player would need) and a seperate referee's guide that contains monsters, treasures, tables, and other stuff the players shouldn't see? What would you omit? How would you do it?
I will start with the classes:
Fighting Men Magic User Cleric Druid Ranger Paladin Bard
(not sure about the Monk and assassin, but the thief would not be included)
Rolling Ability scores: sadly I might go with what gary does now, 4d6 drop lowest, arrange to taste, or at least a 3d6 seven times and use the best six scores. This would eliminate the need for the point exchange system.
Combat: I think the alternate combat system should probably be used.
Races: dwarf, elf, human, hobbit, and maybe half-elf.
More to come latter.
|
|
|
Post by rogattny on Aug 17, 2005 9:28:59 GMT -5
Start with the contents of the original box, as is.
Add pretty much everything from Greyhawk except half-elves. Add the sage section from Blackmoor, possibly the monk and the underwater flavored monsters and magic items. Add the artifacts, demons, and druids from Eldritch Wizardry, along with just enough psionic information to let the monsters use Psionic Blast. From T.S.R. and the early issues of The Dragon add the Illusionist, the Ranger, and some of the more iconic monsters (the Mind Flayer, for one).
I'd want to review the combat clarifications in Greyhawk to see if that had everything I wanted. If not, I'd add some of the combat rules from the Holmes Basic set. I'd need to get a copy of Chainmail and read through that to see if there was anything else to add. Also, if there's space, maybe a slightly smaller version of the Monster & Treasure Assortments - possibly 20 selections per level instead of a hundred.
What we'd end up with is a slightly less heavy version of AD&D1.
R.A.
|
|
|
Post by WSmith on Aug 18, 2005 18:25:34 GMT -5
Do we have a mod here? I am thinking we might want to move this thread into the Homebrew thread, as I am thinking about the inclusion of some of Bregh's house rules, along with Thoth's Alt fighter.
|
|
|
Post by foster1941 on Aug 18, 2005 18:31:05 GMT -5
Done!
|
|
|
Post by WSmith on Aug 18, 2005 18:36:45 GMT -5
Thanks Foster!!! Any take on this yet?
|
|
|
Post by Thoth Amon on Aug 18, 2005 18:54:21 GMT -5
I'm working on compiling a list of Attribute bonuses/penalties into a chart format as we speak. I will post it when I am done.
|
|
|
Post by foster1941 on Aug 18, 2005 19:15:44 GMT -5
I was going to wait until you'd posted more to comment. I agree with leaving the thief out (natch) and think you should add Thoth's Dex-based fighter in its place (now that you're safely on the Homebrew board). I really don't think the Druid adds much, especially since OD&D is so dungeon-oriented, and think you could probably do without it. If anything I'd rather see the Illusionist from TSR#4. The OD&D bard is very munchy and probably needs some pretty serious work before being included. I like the half-elf from Supp I -- they're essentially elves but better as fighters and worse as m-us (max. 6th/6th instead of elves' max 4th/8th), plus they alone can be triple-classed c/f/m-u's which is a cool jack-of-all-trades character. I also like the Supp I paladin and the fact that (like in later editions of Classic D&D) it's a sort of proto-prestige class -- as long as he's always maintained lawful alignment a normal fighter can become a paladin later in his career, and doesn't necessarily need to be one from the start. Having rejected most things from Supp I, those are two of the few I'd like to keep. Good call leaving out the monk and assassin. Except for Steve Marsh's underwater monsters and aventuring notes from Supp II and perhaps the expanded wilderness encounter tables from Supp III I don't think there's really much of anything from either of those books worth keeping. Some of the artifacts in Supp III are cool, I guess, but they (along with the demons) feel "too AD&D" to me -- by including them you risk getting sucked into the AD&D default setting and cosmology (i.e. Greyhawk and the 'planar map' from the back of the AD&D PH).
|
|
|
Post by AxeMental on Aug 18, 2005 23:44:59 GMT -5
what was the TSR #4 illusionist like? What kinds of spells and how did it differ from 1Es?
|
|
|
Post by foster1941 on Aug 19, 2005 0:11:35 GMT -5
The OD&D illusionist (asuming you include the additional spells that were added to the class in The Dragon #1) is almost exactly the same as its AD&D descendant. The spell lists are almost exactly the same (though the AD&D descriptions are more detailed, of course). The only differences are that the OD&D illusionist requires more XP than the AD&D illusionist (apparently the original creator, Peter Aronson, thought illusionists sould require more XP than normal magic-users, whereas Gygax thought they should require less) and the spell progression chart is a little different (at most levels the OD&D illusionist will have more low level spells and fewer higher level spells than an AD&D illusionist). And of course since gnomes aren't an allowed PC race in OD&D there's no mention of gnome illusionists. All in all, though, they're remarkably similar, probably the class that changed the least between OD&D and AD&D.
|
|
|
Post by rogattny on Aug 19, 2005 9:42:29 GMT -5
An aside on the illusionist:
The AD&D illusionist actually has the same xp progression as the m-u. "No they don't, I'm looking at the chart right now, and it's different." Ah, but the Illusionist must have Dex and Int over 15, but doesn't get the 10% bonus to xp. That 10% bonus is factored into the xp chart. A magic-user with a 10% bonus to earned xp and an illusionist will progress at the same rate.
R.A.
|
|
|
Post by WSmith on Aug 19, 2005 11:13:56 GMT -5
An aside on the illusionist: The AD&D illusionist actually has the same xp progression as the m-u. "No they don't, I'm looking at the chart right now, and it's different." Ah, but the Illusionist must have Dex and Int over 15, but doesn't get the 10% bonus to xp. That 10% bonus is factored into the xp chart. A magic-user with a 10% bonus to earned xp and an illusionist will progress at the same rate. R.A. Good catch RA. Foster, thanks for your feedback. I will post more, but I agree with almost everything you say, (not really sure of the druid though, but, I do see the possibilty of leaving them out.) I am still not familiar enough with the bard to say either way. I am all for half-elves. I agree with you assessment of the paladin. Axe, one thing is for sure, the illusionist isn't using a disguise ability.
|
|
|
Post by foster1941 on Aug 19, 2005 11:27:08 GMT -5
I am still not familiar enough with the bard to say either way. The OD&D bard's XP chart (IMO) is way too shallow for all the special abilities he has (only 1000 XP for 2nd level!), and the Charm and Lore charts progress way too fast (flat 10% per level in each ability -- so that a 10th level bard has a base 100% in both, and a 25th level bard has base 250%!). The AD&D Charm and Lore charts are probably better, but of course the AD&D XP chart is even worse! I'd also probably cap their MU spells at 4th or 5th level -- the idea of a non-MU being able to cast 6th and 7th level spells seems wrong to me. One thing I do like about the OD&D bard is that it's open to hobbits (max. 8th level).
|
|
|
Post by rogattny on Aug 19, 2005 12:15:19 GMT -5
Links to all the early T.S.R. and T.D. classes are provided on Dragonsfoot's "New" Classes thread stickied at the top of the Classic D&D page.
R.A.
|
|
|
Post by foster1941 on Aug 19, 2005 12:37:50 GMT -5
There were a bunch more classes in TD#3 that aren't posted in that DF thread -- berserkers, healers, jesters/fools, samurai, ninja (?), and I think 1 or 2 others (some, but not all, of these were also reprinted in Best of Dragon vol. 2). All of these were pretty bad, though, and there's a reason why Gary didn't carry any of them over into AD&D... There was also Len Lakofka's exceedingly politically incorrect writeup of "women" in TD#2, which is worth a read, and actually quite true to the S&S literary genre (but good luck convincing your gf/wife to play in the game if you're using these rules! ) EDIT: Looking at The Dragondex, the full list of new classes in TD#3 seems to have been: Berserker Healer Idiot Jester Samurai Scribe The Ninja didn't appear until TD#16.
|
|
|
Post by WSmith on Aug 20, 2005 15:49:16 GMT -5
EDIT: Looking at The Dragondex, the full list of new classes in TD#3 seems to have been: Berserker Healer Idiot Jester Samurai Scribe The Ninja didn't appear until TD#16. I don't know that I care for any of these at all. The healer may be of some utility, however, I think this should be the cleric's realm. I am not opposed to a berserking ability for certain fighting men, but I am not convinced an entire class need be built around the concept.
|
|